36722 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 / Notices

environment (63 FR 35295, dated June

29, 1998).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

Dated at Rockville, MD, this 29th day of

June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–17920 Filed 7–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–382]

Entergy Operations, Inc.; Waterford

Steam Electric Station, Unit 3;

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. NPF–

38, issued to Entergy Operations, Inc.,

(the licensee), for operation of the

Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3

(Waterford 3), located in St. Charles

Parish, Louisiana.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would change

the Waterford 3 Technical

Specifications to allow an increase in

the Waterford 3 Spent Fuel Pool (SFP)

storage capacity from 1088 to 2398 fuel

assemblies, and to allow an increase in

the maximum fuel enrichment from 4.9

w/o (weight percent) to 5.0 w/o U–235.

The increase in spent fuel storage

capacity is achieved by replacing the

existing spent fuel storage racks by the

higher density racks, a process referred

to herein as ‘‘reracking.’’ The proposed

action is in accordance with the

licensee’s application for license

amendment dated March 27, 1997, as

supplemented by letters dated April 3,

July 21, October 23, November 13, and

December 12, 1997, January 21, January

29, March 23, May 1, May 19, May 21,

May 28, and June 12, 1998.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The Waterford 3 SFP currently

contains 1088 storage cells in 16 spent

fuel racks and full core off-load

capability would be lost in the year

2000. Under the proposed reracking, the

16 existing racks, which contain

Boraflex as the neutron absorber, would

be removed and replaced by new high

density modules. There are no

commercial independent spent fuel

storage facilities operating in the U.S.,

nor are there any domestic reprocessing

facilities; therefore, the projected loss of

storage capacity in the Waterford 3 SFP

would affect the licensee’s ability to

operate Waterford 3. The proposed

amendment will provide a full core offload capability through the end of Cycle

19 (Year 2018).

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

Radiological Impacts

The Waterford 3 uses waste treatment

systems designed to collect and process

gaseous, liquid, and solid waste that

might contain radioactive material.

These radioactive waste treatment

systems are evaluated in the Final

Environmental Statement (FES) dated

March 1973. The proposed rerack will

not involve any change in the waste

treatment systems described in the FES.

Radioactive Material Released to the

Atmosphere

During reactor operation, a small

percentage of the fuel assemblies in the

core are expected to develop leaks,

resulting in a release of fission products

to the reactor coolant. The storage of

additional spent fuel assemblies in the

SFP will not significantly affect the

release of radioactive gases from the SFP

since fission products generally do not

escape from the SFP.

The higher fuel burnup used in the

new rack analysis will result in a higher

concentration of Krypton-85 (Kr-85) in

the reactor coolant, some of which will

be introduced into the SFP water during

refuelings. Accounting for this increased

Kr-85 concentration in the SFP water,

the licensee calculated that the Kr-85

concentration in the air in the fuel

handling building would be two orders

of magnitude lower than the permissible

effluent concentration for the general

public (Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 20).

Iodine-131 released from spent fuel

assemblies to the SFP water will not be

significantly increased due to the

expansion of the fuel storage capacity

since the Iodine-131 inventory in the

fuel will decay to negligible levels

between refuelings.

Most of the tritium in the SFP water

results from activation of boron and

lithium in the primary coolant. A

relatively small amount of tritium is

produced during reactor operation by

the fission process within the reactor

fuel. The subsequent diffusion of the

tritium through the fuel and cladding

represents a small contribution to the

total amount of tritium in the SFP water.

Tritium releases from the fuel

assemblies to the reactor coolant occur

mainly during reactor operation and, to

a limited extent, shortly after shutdown.

Since a small portion of the tritium is

due to fission in the fuel, the increased

fuel burnup will result in an increase in

the amount of tritium in the reactor

coolant.

Most airborne releases of tritium from

nuclear power plants result during

refuelings from evaporation of reactor

coolant, which contains tritium in

higher concentrations than in the SFP.

The storage of additional spent fuel

assemblies in the SFP is not expected to

increase the SFP bulk water temperature

significantly above the 155° used in the

design analysis and, therefore,

evaporation rates from the SFP are not

expected to increase. The higher tritium

concentrations in the SFP water are

expected to result in higher airborne

tritium levels in the fuel handling

building. However, the licensee has

calculated these tritium levels to be

lower than the permissible effluent

concentrations for the general public

contained in Appendix B of 10 CFR Part

20.

Solid Radioactive Wastes

Spent resins are generated by the

processing of SFP water through the

SFP purification system. These spent

resins are replaced about two to four

times a year and are disposed of as solid

radioactive waste. The licensee will use

a vacuum system with an underwater

filtration unit to clean the floor of the

Cask Storage Pit prior to reracking and

the floor of the SFP following removal

of the old SFP rack modules.

Vacuuming of the SFP and Cask Storage

Pit will remove any extraneous debris,

reduce general contamination levels

prior to diving operations, and ensure

visual clarity in the SFP to facilitate

diving operations and SFP rack

changeout. The licensee also plans on

hydrolazing the old fuel rack modules

with demineralized water before

removal from the SFP to remove any

loose crud from the modules. If

necessary, the licensee may also use a

wire brush or equivalent abrasive tool to

assist in the removal of hot particles.

The licensee does not expect that the

additional fuel storage made possible by

the increased storage capacity will

result in a significant change in the

generation of solid radwaste (in the form

of spent resins).

Once the old SFP rack modules have

been hydrolazed, they will be placed

into anti-contamination bags and loaded

into shipping containers for shipment

offsite for decontamination and

disposal. The licensee has stated that

the shipping containers and procedures

will conform to all applicable U.S.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 / Notices 36723

Department of Transportation (DOT)

and/or U.S. NRC regulations.

Liquid Radioactive Wastes

There should not be a significant

increase in the liquid release of

radionuclides from the plant as a result

of the modifications. The SFP cooling

and purification system operates as a

closed system. The SFP ion exchanger

resins remove soluble radioactive

materials from the SFP water and the

frequency of resin changeout may

increase during the installation of the

new racks due to the more frequent fuel

shuffling and underwater hydrolazing of

the old racks during removal. When the

resins are changed out, a small amount

of resin sluice water is released.

However, the amount of liquid

radioactive released to the environment

as a result of the proposed reracking is

expected to be negligible.

Occupational Doses

Radiation Protection personnel will

constantly monitor the doses to the

workers during the reracking operation.

Divers used to perform work in the SFP

will be equipped with five remote

readout radiation detectors, which will

be continuously monitored by Radiation

Protection personnel. The total

occupational dose to plant workers as a

result of the reracking operation is

estimated to be between 6 and 12

person-rem. This dose estimate is

comparable to doses for similar SFP

modifications performed at other plants.

The upcoming reracking operation will

follow detailed procedures prepared

with full consideration of ALARA

principles. On the basis of our review of

the Waterford 3 proposal, the staff

concludes that the Waterford 3 SFP rack

modification can be performed in a

manner that will ensure that doses to

workers will be maintained as low as is

reasonably achievable (ALARA). The

estimated dose of 6 to 12 person-rem to

perform the proposed SFP rerack is a

small fraction of the annual collective

dose accrued at Waterford 3.

Uranium Fuel Cycle and Transportation

The environmental impacts of

transportation resulting from the use of

higher enrichment fuel are discussed in

the staff assessment entitled ‘‘NRC

Assessment of the Environmental

Effects of Transportation Resulting from

Extended Fuel Enrichment and

Irradiation,’’ dated July 7, 1988. This

was published in the Federal Register

on August 11, 1988 (53 FR 30355), as

corrected on August 24, 1988 (53 FR

32322), in connection with an

Environmental Assessment and Finding

of No Significant Impact related to the

Sheron Harris Nuclear Power Plant,

Unit 1. As indicated therein, the

environmental cost contribution of an

increase in fuel enrichment of up to 5

weight percent U–235 and irradiation

limits of up to 60 gigawatt days per

metric ton (GWD/MT) are either

unchanged, or may in fact be reduced

from those summarized in Table S–4 as

set forth in 10 CFR 51.52(c). These

findings are applicable to the proposed

amendment for Waterford 3.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that this proposed action would result

in no significant radiological

environmental impact.

Accident Considerations

In its application, the licensee

evaluated the possible consequences of

a fuel handling accident to determine

the thyroid and whole-body doses at the

Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB), Low

Population Zone (LPZ), and Control

Room. The proposed reracking of the

Waterford 3 SFP will not affect any of

the assumptions or inputs used in

evaluating the dose consequences of a

fuel handling accident and therefore

will not result in an increase in the

doses from a postulated fuel handling

accident.

Nonradiological Impact

The proposed amendment does not

modify land use at the site; no new

facilities or laydown areas are needed to

support the rerack or operation after

rerack; therefore, the proposed

amendment does not affect land use or

land with historical or archeological

sites. The proposed action does not

result in any significant changes to the

types and amounts of effluents that may

be released offsite. Therefore, no

changes or different types of

nonradiological environmental impacts

are expected as a result of the

amendment.

Summary

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action. The

change will not increase the probability

or consequences of accidents, no

changes are being made in the types of

any effluents that may be released

offsite, and there is no significant

increase in the allowable individual or

cumulative occupational radiation

exposure. Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

radiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does not affect nonradiological

plant effluents. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant nonradiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

action, any alternatives with equal or

greater environmental impact need not

be evaluated. As an alternative to the

proposed action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed action. Denial of

the application would not result in any

significant change in current

environmental impacts. The

environmental impacts of the proposed

action and the alternative action are

similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for the Waterford 3.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on June 17, 1998, the staff consulted

with the Louisiana State official, Dr.

Stan Shaw of the Louisiana Radiation

Protection Division, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment.

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined not to prepare an

environmental impact statement for the

proposed action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated March 27, 1997, as supplemented

by letters dated April 3, July 21, October

23, November 13, and December 12,

1997, January 21, January 29, March 23,

May 1, May 19, May 21, May 28, and

June 12, 1998, which are available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, The Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, and at the local public

document room located at the

University of New Orleans Library,

Louisiana Collection, Lakefront, New

Orleans, LA 70122.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day

of June 1998.
36724 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 / Notices

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John N. Hannon,

Director, Project Directorate IV–1, Division

of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–17919 Filed 7–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.

DATES: Weeks of July 6, 13, 20, and 27,

1998.

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Week of July 6

Thursday, July 9

11:30 a.m.—Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (if needed).

Week of July 13—Tentative

Friday, July 17

9:30 a.m.—Public Meeting on

Stakeholders’ Concerns (Public

Meeting) (Contact: Annette ViettiCook, 301–415–1969).

11:30 a.m.—Affirmation Session (Public

meeting) (if needed).

Week of July 20—Tentative

Tuesday, July 21

1:30 p.m.—Meeting with Advisory

Committee on Nuclear Waste

(ACNW) (Public Meeting) (Contact:

John Larkins, 301–415–7360).

3:00 p.m.—Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (If needed).

Week of July 27—Tentative

Wednesday, July 29

2:00 p.m.—Briefing on Operating

Reactors and Fuel Facilities (Public

Meeting) (Contact: Glenn Tracy,

301–415–1725).

4:00 p.m.—Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (If needed).

*The schedule for Commission

meetings is subject to change on short

notice. To verify the status of meetings

call (Recording)—(301) 415–1292.

Contact person for more information:

Bill Hill (301) 415–1661.

The NRC Commission Meeting

Schedule can be found on the Internet

at:

http://www.nrc.gov/SECY/smj/

schedule.htm

This notice is distributed by mail to

several hundred subscribers; if you no

longer wish to receive it, or would like

to be added to it, please contact the

Office of the Secretary, Attn: Operations

Branch, Washington, D.C. 20555 (301–

415–1661). In addition, distribution of

this meeting notice over the Internet

system is available. If you are interested

in receiving this Commission meeting

schedule electronically, please send an

electronic message to wmh@nrc.gov or

dkw@nrc.gov.

Dated: July 2, 1998.

William M. Hill, Jr.,

Secy, Tracking Officer, Office of the Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–18123 Filed 7–2–98; 3:10 pm]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request for Review of an Information

Collection: RI 25–37

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–13, May 22, 1995), this

notice announces that the Office of

Personnel Management (OPM) has

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget a request for review of an

information collection. Form RI 25–37,

Evidence to Prove Dependency of a

Child, is designed to collect sufficient

information for the OPM to be able to

determine whether the surviving child

of a deceased Federal employee is

eligible to receive benefits as a

dependent child.

Approximately 250 forms are

completed annually. We estimate it

takes approximately 60 minutes to

assemble the needed documentation.

The annual burden is 250 hours.

For copies of this proposal, contact

Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606–

8358, or E-mail to mbtoomey@opm.gov

DATES: Comments on this proposal

should be received on or before August

6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments

to: Lorraine E. Dettman, Chief,

Operations Support Division,

Retirement and Insurance Service, U.S.

Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E

Street, NW, Room 3349, Washington,

DC 20415 and Joseph Lackey, OPM Desk

Officer, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, New

Executive Office Building, NW, Room

10235, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION—CONTACT:

Dory Zamani, Budget & Administrative

Services Division, (202) 606–0623.

Office of Personnel Management.

Janice R. Lachance,

Director.

[FR Doc. 98–17840 Filed 7–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request; OPM Form 1203

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–13, May 22, 1995), the

Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

is submitting a request to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

approval of a form which collects

information from the public. OPM Form

1203, Occupational Supplement

Series—Form C, is an optical scan form

designed to collect applicant

information and qualifications in a

format suitable for automated

processing and to create basic applicant

records for an automated examining

system. OPM uses the form to carry out

their responsibility for open competitive

examining for admission to the

competitive service in accordance with

section 3304, 5 U.S.C.

Approximately 500,000 forms are

completed each year with an average

completion time of 27 minutes. For

copies of this proposal, call Mary Beth

Smith-Toomey on (202) 606–8358 or

email to mbtoomey@opm.gov.

DATES: Comments on this proposal

should be received on or before August

6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments

to: Joseph Lackey, OPM Desk Officer,

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and

Budget, New Executive Office Building,

Room 10235, NW., Washington, DC

20503, and Mrs. Crystal A. Wilson, U.S.

Office of Personnel Management,

Nationwide Examining Policy Office,

1900 E Street, NW, Room 2458,

Washington, DC 20415.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Crystal A. Wilson, (202) 606–1010.